The War on Logic

Careful You Don’t Step In The Bullshit

How do we let people get away with so many false analogies without calling them on it for what they are? I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher a couple weeks ago and am now convinced that Tucker Carlson causes aneurisms. During a debate about the function mercenary groups, like Blackwater, in Iraq and other war-zones, Mr. Carlson was very up in arms about how important it is to have private security forces there to guard diplomats after Paul Krugman suggested that guarding our diplomats should be province of the United States Marines as it has been in the past. To combat Mr. Krugman’s statement, Mr. Carlson simple dismissed the idea of Marines guarding diplomats because they are not doing so currently and then proceed to imply that the statement Mr. Krugman made lacked merit because the New York Times, which Mr. Krugman works for, employs a private security force to protect its assets in Iraq.

The fundamental flaw in Mr. Carlson’s argument is that the New York Times (NYT) is a private institution that the U.S. government is under no obligation to protect in Iraq so it makes sense that NYT would hire a security force to guard its people and property in Iraq but diplomats, on the other hand, are the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect, which means that it is the tax payers footing the bill for their private security. As a taxpayer, like Mr. Krugman, I would feel much more comfortable if the diplomats the U.S. government is protecting were being protected by the U.S. military. I feel this way for several reasons. First, the private security forces in Iraq are very expensive and paid far better than our military personnel who could easily fill these positions. This practice not only raises the cost of operations in Iraq but it is also hugely unfair to the troops who are underpaid and indentured for a term of service and thus lack the option to seek a competitive wage with their mercenary counterparts. Second, I generally do not like this privatization of the modern battlefield. We often look to World War II as our greatest moment in war with a country united for a common purpose and our military bravely defending our way of life from those who would seek to infringe on our sovereignty but what you do not see in World War II (or really any war up until now) are civilian companies bidding for things like supply contracts and security details for government officials (among other things). The reason you do not see companies providing the aforementioned functions on the battlefields of yesteryear is because those duties were largely relegated to the military and should remain as such because then those responsible for the soldiers well being are soldiers themselves and under the military chain of command. In addition, limiting the privatization of the battlefield will curb, to some extent, war profiteering, which is a part of any conflict but should be mitigated to what is necessary (the production of arms and equipment for soldiers). Finally, I like that within the military there is a chain of command and direct lines of accountability. These private security forces are not beholden to the same rules of engagement as our armed forces placing them in some sort of gray area as to whom they answer to when something goes wrong.

I invite you to judge Mr. Carlson’s statement for yourself provided this video link remains active.

Damage Done?

It seems like this kind of false representation of reality is becoming more prevalent and I find that dangerous. Mr. Carlson’s argument breaks down to this, Marines aren’t guarding diplomats therefore Marines cannot guard diplomats, and it is that kind of X is happening now therefore Y is impossible way for presenting things that is so dangerous. If there is a concrete example as to why option Y is impossible then please by all means take the time to explain the reasons that the option is off the table and thus open the debate to new ideas because that is the kind of discourse we need in order to learn from one another. Even if it is shown, through a dialog, that option Y is impossible it is likely that the examination of the situation, as it relates to option Y, will yield new ideas and put option A, B, and C out there for further discussion rather than just assume X is the best option because it is the one that is under implantation at the time of the debate. The more we allow ourselves to be taken in by these absolutist arguments, usually involving a louder equals righter bent, the more we damage our ability to think for ourselves and find new and better ways to approach any given situation.